SHAIK SHAFI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in B group, the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the learned Advocates.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is appointed as a Notary on 18-10-2001. On 24-11-2008, he attested and notarised the affidavit of one Smt. Sandya, an applicant for the issuance of the passport. To his surprise, the Passport Officer found that the said affidavit did not contain the signature of the deponent. Smt. Sandya. On 25-11-2008, the Regional Passport Officer brought it to the notice of the Law Secretary. In turn, the Law Department vide its letter dated 11-12-2008 put the petitioner on show-case notice giving him 15 days time of offer his explanation. THE petitioner submitted his reply dated 22-12-2008. Its sum and substance is that the said Smt. Sandya was known to him, that he had explained the contents of the affidavit to her and thereafter asked her to sign the affidavit in his presence, meanwhile the said lady appears to have got an urgent mobile phone call and she took the papers out. THE things slipped out of his mind; he forgot that she was required to sign the affidavit. She submitted the affidavit in the incomplete form. Smt. Sandya also submitted the letter dated 19-12-2008 to the Passport Officer stating that the mistake a unintentional and bona fide. She has owned up the mistake by taking everything on herself.

(3.) SRI R.K. Hatti, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the petitioner has admitted his guilt. In view of his clear and unequivocal admission of his negligence, there is no need to hold the enquiry. SRI Hatti further submits that if the petitioner were to deny the charges against him, the enquiry would not have been dispensed with.